JUDGMENT

Mr. Rajbir Sehrawat, J. (Oral)

This is a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 12.02.2018 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Executing Court'), whereby in an execution petition filed by the petitioner, an application filed by respondent No.3-Manmohan Singh Jakhar, the legal representative of Gurpreet Jakhar, has been allowed; and the possession of the rented premises has been ordered to be handed over by the evicted tenant to the respondent No.3-Manmohan Singh Jakhar.

2. The brief facts of the present petition are that the House No.1392, Sector 33-C, Chandigarh, was owned by one Satinder Pal Kaur. She had executed a Will dated 14.04.2004 in favour of the present petitioner and respondent No.3-Gurpreet Jakhar, whereby the entire ground floor of above-said house was bequeathed in favour of respondent No.3-Gurpreet Jakhar and the first floor was bequeathed in favour of the present petitioner. Some dispute arose between the parties regarding the said Will. The matter had reached to this Court vide FAO No.1858 of 2010. By way of acceptance of the Will and on the statements made by the parties to that effect, this Court had upheld the Will in faovur of the present petitioner and respondent No.3-Gurpreet Jakhar; vide order dated 17.10.2012. The consequent mutation in the record of the Estate Office, Chandigarh has also been entered.

3. However, in the meantime, the above-said house was rented out to respondents No.1 and 2 by two different lease deeds, firstly by the petitioner and respondent No.3-Gurpreet Jakhar; and subsequently, renewed by the present petitioner only. However, since the petitioner asserted that she was in need of more residential accommodation, therefore, the petitioner and respondent No.3-Gurpreet Jakhar; jointly filed an eviction petition against the respondents No.1 and 2. In that eviction petition, it was asserted that the house was required for residence for family members of the petitioner. Accordingly, in the prayer clause of the eviction petition, it was mentioned that the eviction order against respondents No.1 and 2 be passed in favour of the petitioners, namely, Manpreet K.I.Singh, as well as, in favour of respondent No.3-Gurpreet Jakhar, however, the possession be handed-over to the petitioner. The said eviction petition allowed. However, the order of disposal of eviction petition was not passed on merits of the case, rather, it was passed on the basis of compromise and the statements of the parties to that effect; recorded before the Rent Controller.

4. After the eviction order was passed by the Rent Controller, respondent No.3-Gurpreet Jakhar had expired. Therefore, the husband of Gurpreet Jakhar, who is representing now as respondent No.3 in the present petition, filed execution petition on 21.07.2017; claiming the possession of ground floor of the house in question; being the legal heir of Gupreet Jakhar, in whose favour the title qua the ground floor had already been mutated in the records of the Estate Office, Chandigarh. In that execution petition, since respondent No.3 was representing the landlord, therefore, notice was issued only to the tenants; and not to the present petitioner, who is the co-landlord. During the proceedings of the said execution petition, the tenants sought some extension of time for handing over the possession to respondent No.3-Manmohan Singh Jakhar. Accordingly, the Executing Court passed an order that respondent No.3 be handed over the possession by 15.12.2017. Therefore, respondent No.3 had even furnished his ban